HON'BLE JUDGES/CORAM: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
Contentions raised by the Petitioner
- The petitioner wife appeared and resisted the petition filed for divorce by her husband the respondent vide her written statement.
- She also filed an application stating that she has been subjected to mental and physical torture by the Respondent, his brother, his brother-in-law and sister-in-law.
- After marriage, she also found out that Respondent's first wife Shashi too, was similarly harassed by the Respondent and his family members and was forced to leave the matrimonial home.
- Even during pregnancy, the petitioner was constrained to live in fear and continued to be ill-treated even after the daughter was born.
- The petitioner contends was thrown out of the matrimonial home and was compelled to move to her parental home.
- According to her, all possible attempts were made by her to return to her matrimonial home.
- When the respondent contended that the petitioner had barged into their flat owned by his father, the petitioner claims that she was subject to various threats.
- The petitioner contended that she has no other premises to reside and had to take shelter in the house of her parents.
Contentions raised by the Respondent
- The respondent contends that the petitioner was married to another person and there was legal dissolution of the said marriage and when she filed for a divorce by mutual consent, the petition was withdrawn. Hence, her marriage with the Respondent during the subsistence of another marriage is null and void ab initio. Therefore, she is not his legally wedded wife and has no right to reside in his father’s house.
- The respondent denies all the allegations of domestic violence and contended that that, it is the Petitioner, who is creating the nuisance and harassment.
- He contends that she had willfully left the house and threatened him which made him to file for a dissolution of marriage.
Judgment
- The court held that the woman had a right to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household. It stated that the object of the Domestic Violence Act was enacted to secure the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home. The court also stated that 'whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household' are of utmost significance, when the right of the aggrieved person, i.e. the wife, is to be decided so far as her residence in shared household is concerned.
- It is also irrelevant whether the Respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household. The moment it is proved that it was a shared household, as both of them had, in their matrimonial relationship, i.e. domestic relationship, resided together there and in this case, upto the disputes arose, it follows that the Petitioner-wife gets right to reside therein and, therefore, to get the order of interim injunction, restraining Respondent-husband from dispossessing her, or, in any other manner, disturbing her possession from the said flat.
